Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.

Philosopher John Rawls believes that in a free and democratic society there will always be groups of people who accept different "comprehensive doctrines" or world views, including different moral principles. If this diversity is inevitable, it leads to the question how we ought to take the moral views of other groups into consideration in the course of our private moral deliberations. It also leads to the question how the state ought to take the moral views of various groups into consideration - especially those who consider a particular policy to be morally wrong.

Wong's view can be seen as a possible answer to these questions. We ought to give some significant moral weight to the fact that a group considers certain actions, such as abortion or the development of nuclear weapons, to be seriously wrong.

Another possibility has been suggested by Robert Nozick. Nozick proposes that where possible we ought to "avoid compelling people to participate in aims they find morally objectionable or heinous." (The Examined Life, p. 290) In cases in which the federal government will fund programs that some group finds heinous, members of that group might be allowed to divert their taxes to other programs. Given that money is fungible, this may be a largely symbolic concession, but that does not mean that it is unimportant.

Reference: John Rawls, Political Liberalism and Robert Nozick The Examined Life.